IN RE: Peyton BEEHLER (2025)

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Anthony S. Senft, Jr., a Judge of the County Court, Suffolk County, from vacating the petitioner's plea agreement of February 6, 2024, in an action entitled People v. Beehler, pending in the County Court, Suffolk County, under Indictment No. 72309/22, and, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Anthony S. Senft, Jr., to sentence the petitioner in accordance with the plea agreement of February 6, 2024.

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569;  see Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352).  The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16).  The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.